[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Untouchables

At 06:23 PM 6/17/02 -0400, Douglas342@aol.com wrote:

    Anderson, Battie, Williams, Strickland, Delk ...  I think if I had to
pick untouchables, I would ask Pierce and Walker.  Isn't the big question how
the "supporting cast" relates to the Big Two?  If P & W both say, "We need
X," then X is untradeable.
Well I'd certainly solicit their opinion and take it into consideration, but I really don't think they should make the decision. It's bad for their egos, it's bad for team chemistry to show 2 of the inmates so thoroughly running the asylum, it's bad for the next time management needs to demonstrate any kind of authority. They also are likely to have a fairly short term and limited perspective on it. What makes them immediately happy can't be the only decider.

And I certainly wasn't considering Strick or Delk untradeable. Sorry if that was unclear. I was just bringing their limitations in to show why I agreed about the importance of Kenny. Kenny's role isn't as big as Pierce or Walkers and maybe not as big as Battie's (that's a coin flip choice, depending upon when you ask me) but it's absolutely key to everyone else's development IMO.


     With the possible exception of Sacramento (retro-NBA), this league is
turning into a league where the winners have two stars and a good cast.  The
days of the 60s Cs, with several hall of famers, are gone forever, lost
amidst the greed of players who aren't respected if they don't get
$14,000,000 at age 22.  Barf.
Yeah, but that's been happening for years. My attitude about the money - they WANT me to resent it/be jealous of it so the best way to 'get back' is to ignore it, aside from looking at cap complications. I just miss the days when at least you could count on the guys who were the role players being fundamentally sound.

Kim